Should the Rich Help the Poor? | Philosophy Tube
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 дек 2016
- Do people and countries with money have a duty to aid those in poverty? How are human rights affected by capitalism? What about reparations for colonialism and slavery? And isn't this a very bourgeois way of thinking anyway?
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Henry Shue, Basic Rights
Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery
Leif Wenar, “Property Rights and the Resource Curse,” www.biicl.org/files/4363_wenar...
World Poverty & Human Rights - Thomas Pogge
Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right - edited by Thomas Pogge unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015...
Elizabeth Ashford, “Severe Poverty as an Unjust Emergency,” in Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right
Bourgeois Philosophy, bourgeoisphilosophy.wordpress...
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. 
Развлечения
Olly, 2016: "Should the rich help the poor?"
Olly, 2019: "SMASH THE STATE, STOP THE N^ZIS, AND SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FOR THE PEOPLE!"
😍
2016: College boy
2019: bearded hunk
@@GothicKin 2020: Daddy
Maaaaaaayyyyyyyybeeeee it's not only the good guy Olly who radicaly changed, maybe it's the complete Olly's environnement who changed. Spoiler : we are in this together.
glow up!! 😍😍
François Leduc Commentaire perspicace, mon ami
"The law, in its magnificent equality, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the street, and stealing bread." - Anatole France
Because rich people would absolutely need need to live under bridges while begging for money and stealing bread when it's outlawed.
Things like that really make you rethink the word "equality".
perfect quote. ima steal it for my presentation. thx a lot pal :)
The sad thing is even though someone rich would do something like that. They would get out of it anyways
We're talking about this in school now, and I'm killing it :D
Hah, nice!
This is something I've been thinking on for a while: basically, we shouldn't try to simply help the poor, we should try to create a world where no one is poor. This is difficult because for most people it means giving up creature comforts that make them feel safe, all that disposable income. But if we succeed in creating this world, then everyone will be safe.
This also reminds me of the argument for Guaranteed Basic Income. At the moment in most countries, right to food and shelter is not actually guaranteed, nor is it really seen as something everyone deserves, only people with money. I'm very lucky to live in a country where I get help from the state during periods of unemployment. However, in order to gain these benefits (not rights by definition) I have to prove that I am looking for paid work. If I fail to do this my right to food and shelter will be taken away. Therefore it is not really a right since it is conditional.
I don't think that everyone should get paid even if they're not contributing to society, however, the terms we have at the moment force people to contribute to the economy first and not society. For example, if I work in a shop for 8 hours a day I'm contributing less to society than if I volunteered at a shelter or charity, but the first is contributing directly to the economy and that is deemed more important than the good of society, which we hope will benefit indirectly.
Sorry to go on a bit, I'm procrastinating doing some voluntary data collation! Great video!
Rua O'Neill Even "people should not get payed if they don't contribute to society" could be seen as a denial of basic rights. Who defines "contributing to society"? Why does that even matter? (Btw I don't necessarily disagree with you I'm just pointing something out. I actually advocate for an access based economy)
mebe84 that doesn't answer the questions #Basicincome
mebe84
I've been mulling over universal/basic income arguments for years now and there's another way of looking at it: it's not that people are getting paid for doing nothing. Those people, by necessity, will be putting that money back into the economy to buy things like food and housing. Now there's absolutely a set of people that will be content with the bare minimum and subsist, possibly wholly, on the guaranteed income, but even in that regard, their money (entirely) will be reinserted back into the economy. That's not nothing.
But the bigger picture, the why, is obviated when looking at how many *more* people will be *even more* productive for society if they could just have that base cushion. How many more businesses, and even entertainment/art, would crop up if the fear if failure, that being not generating enough income to survive, would/could be alleviated by a basic income cushion?
The only hurdle I really keep coming to isn't laziness, which is proven untrue by the many basic income studies already done (people generally get more productive), but is really: How do we stop Rentiers from capitalizing on this system and "artificially" raising rent for things like housing. I've yet to see or think of a good/just way without a government stepping in and freezing or controlling (like by a % of the surrounding economic production) rent.
That's the thing, Xain. The government must step in there. Here in Germany, they did. Partially to aid the economically disadvantaged, partiall to prevent another housing market collapse.
That would never happen because the poor are just stupid.
"It is immoral to use private property in order to get rid of the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property" - Wilde.
BadMouseProductions Good point
The worst rich capitalists are the ones to are kind to the poor, just like the worst slave owners are the ones who are kind to their slaves
@@Kolokommouna why is that?
@@mandel94 because the slaves will be satisfied and will not attemt to free themselves completely
@@Kolokommouna nobody can survive without working, nature compels u to work,does that mean you are not free?
"They don't know dick" lol never heard that expression before until now....
I just want to say something about that whole _"You cant use your rights if you are dead"_
So, Ergo Proxy is pretty cool right? So, in that show there is a character that says _"What the hell is the point of freedom if you have to die for it?",_ and I dont like aphorisms but... damn, that is a good phrase.
That is all. Thank you.
i always found the question "should the rich help the poor" so frustrating and I didn't know why i did, but from this video i think i finally figured it out. yes, the question is problematic from the get go!
@@adventure_lewis3354 are you saying take money they worked hard for just to give it to people who doesn’t work as hard as them
I think people who inherit money should only give to the poor because they didn’t work for their money
@@allstorys7325 I don’t see why employees should work their butts off to make their CEO rich, while not even getting basic things like medical and dental.
@@adventure_lewis3354 yes poor people deserve too get paid more
@@thierryestiverne4686 While rich people don’t need to make billions, they do deserve at least some of it for taking the risk of running a business
oh god WHO IS THAT ohhh it's you, pre-facial hair
This is your friendly reminder from the post-facial hair future
Oh god WHO IS THAT ohhh its you, post-post-pre-facial hair
make jobs
for American NINJAs
+40 MILLION NINJA - - NO INCOME, NO JOB, AVAILABLE
YOU ARE LABOR YOU ARE SCREWED
TIME FOR ANOTHER NEW DEAL
A NEW DEAL . . . . AGAIN
A NEW FIAT CURRENCY
HYPER INFLATION DE LEVERAGING = RISK REDUCTION = DEBT REDUCTION
EXCCESSIVE FINCIAL MANIPULATION = EXTREME WEALTH IN-EQUALITY
LYN ALDEN SAYS:
COMMODITY PRICES PRICES WILL DRIVE INFLATION, HAVE BEEN LOW FED, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CREATE INFLATION, LITTLE CONTROL, GUIDE MARKET SO DEVALUE THE DOLLAR - - - - PETRO DOLLARS FROM 70S $$ & OIL HAVE ESTABLISHED $ AS WORLD RESERVE LAST 5 YRS, STRONG DOLLAR, NOW $ BEAR MARKET (SELL OFF ) NOTHING YET NOW SKIRTING THE PETRO $, CHINA BIGGEST IMPORTER GETTING AROUND THE DOLLAR LONG TERM DEBT CYCLE, CURRENCY DEVALUATION COMING, HARD ASSETS WILL DO WELL 3 TO 5 YR. . . . . OPPORTUNITIES, DOLLAR YSTEM, NOT MOVING, BOTTLENECK, GLOBAL GROWTH ? EURO.YEN WILL STRENGTHEN . . . COMMODITIIES FORIEGN EQUITIES FUTURE, GREEN ? SILVER / ZINK / COPPER REAL SILVER, ETFS, MINING ? - - TAKING PROFITS , TOOLS ? EQUITIES FASTGRAPH - - PRICE TO FUNDAMENTALS ROTATE OUT OF TECK INTO GLOBAL ENERGY - - OVER BOUGHT / UNDER BOUGHT OPPORTUNITIES - - NEAR TERM GOLDYR TO YR NOT BIG ISSUE PRODUCTION, BROAD SUPPLY - - BIT COIN OUTLOOK - - BULLISH LIKE PRECIOUS METALS, NOW BIT COIN DIGITAL, ISSUES ISSUE COPYING MAKES THE ?? NETWORK EFFECT, 10K NODES BIT COIN LEADING, MORE SECURITY, MORE MINING, EMERGING AS STABLE LEADER, ESTABLISHED DOES WELL AS CURRENCY IS DEVALUED, NEAR TERM OVER BOUGHT FADING 20K BUY POINT, CLEAR AIR, BULLISH NEAR TERM VOLATILITY, STOCKS OVER BOUGHT, CORRECTIONS,
Dorian Gray from Penny Dreadful
Haha I thought it was going to say pre-transition, if you thought she looked differently *then*...
wish people would appreciate and look up to people like PhilosophyTube, Contrapoints, NonCompete and many others; instead of pseudo intellectual con-men like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro (or atleast worse off people like Lauren Southern etc).
or Vaush
With all my heart, I hope you never get your disturbing wish.
cognitive dissident you hope that people run to ideological idiots over educated, well cited, non grifter creators?
@@peanutbutter452 I don't know what you mean. I'm trying to discourage them from watching videos like this one. I mean only to rescue them from the political abyss of creators like Ollie. Maybe we're on the same page?
@@TheDionysianFields No offence, but you are probably too stupid for this channel.
Congratulations on 100K! This channel is great. It's one of my favorites and I'm always looking forward for new videos. I've found its topics a source of inspiration and it helped me to consolidate my liking of philosophy. Thank you so much.
Olly I love you!
every time I watch your videos (which is every time they come out) I end up confused and in doubt of everything I've thought of as "the right thing to do". But always in that good way that makes me think... A lot! And the philosophers you bring up (especially Sheth, but also Shue) have given me new arguments and new ways of explaining my views of the world!
So in short: Thank you Olly! Thank you so much!
Surely the more pertinent question is: should "rich" and "poor" exist? Should that dichotomy even be something that we allow to exist, let alone perpetuate either by design or accident?
Hands up full-on anarchist, here. But I think that's a question that deserves an answer, instead of being taken as an assumption or an axiom of economic theory.
When he said "Pick an ordinary right" the first thing that come to mind is "the right to die".
So yeah, it makes continuing the topic a bit harder, but yeah.
you have that right
Your videos are helpful, well worded, and engaging. Thank you and I hope you keep up the great work!
I think Oscar Wilde had some very interesting ideas on this subject in the beginning of "The Soul of man under socialism". Very short essay, I really recommend it to anyone interested.
charmlessman Thanks
I'm not sure I quite understand the distinction between formal and substantive access to rights. Clearly if exercising a right means I'll die then I don't have substantive access. But what if I'll just lose my job? What if I'll have to miss a day of work? What if I have to pay a steep fee, and the fee makes me uncomfortable but I can afford it?
Like, no matter what we do, exercising a right will always require some sort of sacrifice. How low must that sacrifice be for access to a right to count as "substantive"?
Xidnaf the sacrifice must be as close to zero as possible
Xidnaf It shouldn't severely cripple or worse you or your loved ones. To use your example losing your job for exercising your right is obviously not acceptable. For fees or time it takes we would have to look at what would be a crippling amount of money to pay or time to spend. While that is a much more complicated matter I would a good place to start is to look at the poorest members of a society and see if they can still effectively exercise that right(look at voting for example). Of course even this provides problems (which is why I advocate abandonment of money altogether in favor of an access based economy)
Consider what a right is intended to accomplish. When we say that people should have some right, it must be because we see some good coming from that right. For example, if the right is freedom of speech then the intended good is a world with plentiful exchange of ideas and exposure to many points of view.
Suppose there is some fee that people must pay before they are allowed to speak. We can determine if the fee is so high that it takes away the substantive right by looking at the outcome. Do we still get a plentiful exchange of ideas and exposure to many points of view because people are paying the fee and speaking their minds? Is there some portion of society that is refusing to pay the fee and thus denying us access to important ideas and points of view? Even a very small fee might end up silencing people that should be heard, and so in substance the right of free speech has been lost because a small barrier is causing it to fail to achieve the good it was designed to achieve.
For another example, consider a right to abortion. What good do we hope to achieve by giving people that right? Let's say we want to protect people from the suffering of an unwanted pregnancy and prevent unwanted children from coming into the world. If a pregnant woman feels only mildly disinclined to carry through with the pregnancy, then perhaps a small fee might be enough to stop her from getting an abortion, but in that case there's no real suffering involved so letting her have an abortion was never part of the intended purpose of giving people that right. In contrast, if the fee is so large that even a woman who desperately wants an abortion would choose not to have one, then the right to abortion is effectively failing to prevent the suffering that it was designed to prevent.
For another example, if people have a right to marriage, then the goal would be that people who are deeply in love can express their love in legal union. The goal is _not_ to have random strangers getting married. If there were some fee involved in marriage that ensured that only people who are deeply in love would be willing to pay the price, that would be fine since they are the only people who the right was intended to serve.
Xidnaf Speaking of missing a day of work for your rights, why isn't voting day a national holiday? Yet Christian holidays are.
He means that a substantive right is a right that you should be able to get. If someone has a right to make money, then its substantive only if that someone does have a fair shake. It sounds weird to say that you have a right to have X but you can never get it. You can tie this principle to basic needs. If you can't have access to health care and if you get sick, then how can you have a substantive right to get things that require a good health (like becoming an athlete)?
A formal right is a right that its written on paper but not necessarily substantive. Perhaps everyone has a right to a fair trial. But if someone doesn't have the resources to have one (he/she gets a bad lawyer, the judge doesn't like them and so on), then the fair trial is formal but not substantive.
Glad to see this video right now. It seems particularly relevant to the situation here in the US right now.
Revisited this video as I'm writing an essay on what the best justification of rights is....Definitely going to look into Shue, sounds like he's arguing exactly what I have been thinking the whole time.
Cheers yet again Olly!
"In some states in the US, you technically have the right to an abortion."
Oof, the one time he doesn't put in a *at time of recording.
THE GOAL IS REACHED!!!! Congrats Olly, you deserve it!
Thanks! I'm trying not to celebrate too hard, because Patreon can be fickle and things can fluctuate up and down a bit, but it's certainly promising!
Aaaaah!!! Olly! Congrats on 100k subs!
Thanks!
This might have been your best video up to date! Very well done, dear colleague. :)
Thank you! I recently wrote a current event paper on poverty that mirrors these views you covered. Which flys in the face of the overstated assumptions.Yet another reason why I love your channel and insights!
I rather enjoyed this video (for the most part). I would be quite interested to know your thoughts on the subject of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which has gained a surprising amount of traction in recent years as a potential solution to poverty. Under this system, the existing welfare bureaucracy is substantially reduced, and every person is unconditionally granted regular transfer payments from the state. There is a lot of debate about how this would be implemented (namely, how it could be funded), but several countries (including Finland and Canada) have voted to trial the system in some capacity.
There are a few points raised in this video that I would like to respond to. Namely:
1. "Trade not aid" - While aid is an essential part of eliminating poverty, establishing effective economic ties with developing nations is also quite important. It creates an ongoing income stream, provides opportunities for locals to explore new skills and professions, and can potentially reduce the control of corrupt/dictatorial governments (if their economies come to rely on a broader range of industries and institutions). The fact that wealthier nations also profit from the exchange is not inherently a problem, as long as the system is regulated to ensure fair trade practices that benefit both sides (such as guaranteeing fair prices for goods and fair wages).
2. "Bourgeois philosophy" - I agree that ensuring formal systemic/institutional economic justice is important; however, I would contest the assertion that the rich "helping the poor" is an invalid way of thinking. Broad political and economic issues are fairly abstract, and difficult for most individuals to understand (let alone change) without a comprehensive education - this is the arena of governments and large institutions. Charity, however, is something that most people understand and, where affluent, can reasonably participate in. Many individuals have made great efforts to reduce poverty on a small scale using the resources that they have, and it could be dangerous to dismiss or invalidate these efforts. It would, of course, be better if there were no need for charity in the first place, but until we achieve such a system, I would prefer to view individual acts of goodwill in a positive light. They may not solve the more systemic problems, but if people are doing the best that they can within the system that they find themselves in, I feel that it would be unfair to fault them (or the philosophy behind their actions).
Y
Thank you for your videos. I have as of yet, no money but I hope you'll get the sustenance you need to educate more people! :))
Thanks :)
This is an amazing video. As an 18 year old girl taking philosophy and going into a Great Books Program, this reminds me of why I need to take on the world and read philosophy.
Go for it!
“No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger than its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.”
~ Marian Anderson
This blows my mind!
You need a podcast!
I've been thinking about a podcast for a while - I don't really know what I would do though? Do you think people would listen if it was just extended versions of the videos?
I'm very biased in my wanting a podcast from you so I personally would love to hear an extended version of this topic, so if it were up to me I'd say yes. However, I'm well aware that you have a substantial audience so I'd ask the masses what they'd think of this idea.
My two cents: I love the idea of expanding the general knowledge of topics that may sway one way or another. I can't really think of any topics off the top of my head aside from the 'Rich/Poor' argument you've made.
"I started philosophy so that anyone...."
wow I can't believe olly thorn invented philosophy good job man
Finally, I can use what I discussed in my moral issues course at university to engage with one of your videos!
I get the feeling some people watch these videos & then immediately forget their contents. I see some claiming Olly didn't justify the views presented here. But then I'm like, did they just ignore things like the distinction between formal & substantive rights, between wealth redistribution viewed as justice & it viewed as charity (etc.)? Olly may well find these views compelling, but that doesn't entail that he just expressed his opinions in the video.
RK's Bourgeoisie Philosophy blog is one of my favorites. I don't always agree (though I usually do), but it was nice to see it mentioned. Good video Olly. 😊
I really appreciate this.
Though, if I'm being entirely honest with myself, it's probably because I'm a leftist living in a bubble constantly being reaffirmed of prior convictions, which is the fault of no one but myself.
Anyway, I view extreme concentration of wealth as another method to introduce an enforceable hierarchy in place of overt, state led fascism.
Through low wages and a high private prison population (I'm in the US) to effectively achieve slave labor, voter suppression to keep accessibility to government representation reserved for the already privileged, worship of arbitrary legality in regards to victimless and benign crimes being substantiation for murder, and being taught to normalize these transgressions through an ethically questionable school system, it's understandable to present the problems of inequality in a way becoming of the bourgeoisie.
I really dig the video and I'm glad I subscribed.
Jacob Grady Poverty is a form of violence. If that's a left wing position I don't think I could ever identify as right wing in anyway
In my experience, right wingers are often average people who have been fooled, or are part of the rich class themselves. Such people don't want to accept the possibility they might be even partially or unwittingly to blame for the current situation. It's a natural tendency of humanity.
im right wing fight me
to the "dickriding association" guy, poverty isn't violence.
Unique and Hilarious Username Fighting is what we're trying to avoid you bloke XD #Perfectexample #ProvertyisViolence
Jacob Grady there is no such things as victimless crimes. There is always a victim, always.
Of course the drug cartels and the pimps wish the world believed as you. Shortsightedness amazes me.
That won't be necessary when the poor seize the means of production.
Dnt Wry you really think that the poor when they get the means of production won't just act like those they took it from?
but the poor have already seized all means of production. Almost all companies are headed by professional managers, all R&D, production, marketing and retail are done by paid employees. Nowadays, who owns a company makes 0 difference on how companies operate. So what kind of change do you have in mind? how would you run a business if you're in charge?
Joshua Bruton Paying in stock is a good way to motivate CEO to work in company's interest, it also locks down their loyalty. It's not like the owner don't want to pay mid and low level employee stock in lieu of cash, the trouble is: can you pay your bill with it?
Joshua Bruton Haha I was just thinking maybe I can sell part of my future income as stock and get a house or something, then I harshly reminded myself it's called mortgage.
hmm im almost sure this already happened in history and didnt work, but i cant remember when
I liked how you spent the start of the video explaining formal V substantive rights.
Awesome video. Will need to think on this for awhile. Thank you!
The real question is should the majority of the poor help and work for the minority of the rich!?🤔
@@emmanuel4764 they really hard he start of saying people are suffering and dying bro even the poor here are considered privilege
Even the question alone, "Should we help the poor?" benefits how we see the rich. Rather it being something essential, it's something rich people can do to appear good. For example, let's say Elon Musk donates 800.000 to charity. As an uncritical consumer, you wouldn't see a problem, rather think highly of him for being so generous. But as his worker, you can't stop yourself from wondering how come he couldn't raise your minimum wage. The question shouldn't be if we should help the poor, rather if the bourgeoisie should stop exploiting it's workers.
Basic outline of the difference between substantive and formal rights. Good job.
Always happy to see Williams cited
Another great talk on an important subject for our time. Thanks, Olly!
Generally speaking, I do think the rich should help the poor, but I think when you look at how most people became rich or poor in the world today, the problem goes deeper than what a simple handout could fix. Many businesses in the U.S., for example, both use and pollute the air, land, and water without having to pay for these resources or to clean them up. So they benefit from the harm they cause others and freely take what should be public property for their own benefit. The government allows this because they see it as an incentive for people to pursue forming and maintaining a business (and because the existing wealthy wield a lot of power and argue for it). If they had to pay what these resources were truly worth to the communities where they built their businesses, their wealth would naturally be distributed out to that community and there would be fewer poor people in a more natural and just "redistribution" of wealth to those whose rights were infringed.
Beyond that, the wealthy often succeed by harnessing the working power of others while not paying them a living wage. If they paid their employees justly for the work they do for the company, this would also naturally "redistribute" the wealth to those who merit benefiting from it by virtue of their direct contribution to its formation. This is an argument going on in the U.S. now. Should businesses have to pay their employees a living wage? By failing to do so, it could be argued they turn their workforce into a serf class unable to break free of their situation. The poor can't leave their jobs for a substantially better paying one because the other companies out there also offer low wages in comparison to the level of work they gain in exchange, and the poor usually can't afford to start their own businesses or have the knowledge and skills necessary to do so successfully. Many people living in the U.S. cannot afford to pay for housing while working a 40-hour work week (or more). There is a whole class of people here now that fall under the term "working poor." They cannot afford to pay for their basic needs, their level of debt continues to grow, and they are trapped in a system designed to keep them impoverished. This shouldn't be the case, and changing how we approach pay structures in the U.S. could fix this problem.
To move out into the world at large, many countries have poor people in the truest sense of the word. They live in huts, barely have food or clothes, and lack clean water or health resources of any kind outside of what is provided to them through charity. No one in this modern day should have to live that way. Richer countries should help poorer countries change and thrive. Of course, some can't become better due to their land being incapable of sustaining human life at a better level (deserts, mountainous areas, and frozen lands can't be farmed; many African countries will probably always fight pestilence, etc). As more people flee from these harsh conditions, richer countries close their borders and turn against immigration. I think richer societies should encourage this migration and welcome the poor into their countries, America included. We have the resources and land to do so without negatively impacting our own society, so we should do it. Will we? Unlikely with Trump as our next President, but maybe one day in the near future we'll open our borders again. I think we all have a responsibility to help others less fortunate than ourselves, but to what extent is always the question. How far do we take it?
But you are using them so aren't you part of the problem too?
When it comes to the question of how far do we take it, for a large part that’s where socialism steps in. Complete dissolution of this hierarchy of rich exploiting poor and working people, everywhere. That way we can move toward completely ceasing the cycle of work and poverty. That’s the main idea; the differences in ideology then is broken down into the reasons why each sect thinks it’s a good idea, which is guided by their own ideas for a post-capitalist future, which they hope to bring about by their own ideas of how to organize people. Some ideas overlap, some butt heads on authority, the concentration of newfound power in a state vs spread over an entire population, violence, reform politics vs revolution, identity politics, concepts of justice, even the value of markets sometimes. But they all _mostly_ focus on the idea that to truly fix human existence, we must bring down our societies to build them back up as something better.
great video. keep up the good work!
great vid. will share.
We should keep helping each other meanwhile
See, I'm a marxist-leninist, as I have pointed out on previous videos. So obviously I think it's a bourgeois way of thinking, that the rich should help the poor. The rich should stop being rich.
Also, congratulations on reaching 100k subs! You deserve multiple millions, in my opinion. One of my favorite channels on here. I have to admit that you're one of my favorite because you cover the most leftist things, whereas every other youtubers I watch is a liberal and only covers liberal views, except for one, who's a socialist and only talks extensively about video games and why anti-feminists are bad at making good arguments. I'm not sure if you actually are a leftist, but you certainly talk about it more than most others.
i used to think that way but seeing how stupid people are it makes me think of women asking men for their rights when men had to take their by force.
lile a gaselle complaining that lions eat them while being unable to do (or not willing in this case) anythin about it.
i would agree with whatever result only if the people were to kill all their oppressors, i think thats the only way to earn anythink you ask for in this world.
laws and politics are just trickery to keep people apeaced while getting fucked in the ass. if those laws are not legit and those politicians arent defending the people then they mean nothing and should cease to exist.
His "Should Politicians be Honest or 'Electable'" video makes it seem like he's a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and thus a leftist, although I'm not sure what his exact political beliefs are.
United Provinces of Atlantica
he has already explained his radical feminist views. He is that kind of guy that lives in a fantasy and complains that people dont "chill" enough to understand while at the same time screwing them and not respecting their views nor listening to rational arguments (which arent a fantasy).
OP, you might enjoy the channel "Libertarian Socialist Rants", although he doesn't seem to post very often anymore.
ow the edge
Great video :D keep it up!
Honestly Olly, you're such a top bloke!
“[I do this] so that anybody in the world can learn about philosophy, without accruing even one penny of debt.” Thank you, Olly. I needed to see an example of someone out there understanding others, caring about someone else, and helping them out, in a real way, today. It’s inspiring, and refuels my tank a little
short answer: yes
long answer:
yeeeeeeeeeees
Luv this channel! Thanks, man!
I wish I had found this when I was writing an essay about the Benin bronzes and colonialism. Great video!
8:19 it might just sound like clever political framing for that question, but.. indeed, we could go further. What is property but not 'theft' from nature + some labor, and when (structural) natural resources get inherited or sold, we double down on accpeting that 'theft' as legitimate, as well as all the social inequalities that flow from this 'theft' of nature (like the gradient between the super rich and super poor).
The way this matter is presented in this video, it sounds like poverty is literally an effect of excessive wealth. This seems reasonable to me, and the idea of the rich giving to the poor seems just like a more roundabout and less efficient way of the rich not making as much money in the first place, thus leaving more resources or wealth down the line. As an engineering student though, thinking about this logistically, how could you correct the issue? If we assert that poverty is a product of extreme wealth, do we say that people are only allowed to earn up to a limit, and then anything extra gets re-distributed? This just seems like a harder and less-complicated version of taxes, and I suppose on a more global scale.
The other problem is that I'd say the average person in a wealthy country is just as powerless to change the economic imbalance as a person in an extremely poor country. At this point, it is simply not practical to any of our lives, to buy clothes that are made ethically, at least for the most part. Nowhere really sells things that aren't made in some third-world country where the workers are paid a pittance. I suppose you could make all your own stuff, and then risk losing your job and becoming poor yourself. As far as I can see, whatever view we take on poverty, it's only the super-rich that can change the situation. But since in the US, almost unbounded power comes with money, the rich really have no incentive to change, except those with a strong moral compass (a la Bill and Melinda Gates, perhaps).
Any time the government tries to even out the field with regulation, people just get very pissy, so there's going to have to be some immense new paradigm of wealth and moral obligations if we're ever to even start closing the gap between very rich and very poor.
Democratic ownership of the means of production - socialism.
Dnt Wry Absolutely, but as we saw with Bernie, socialism is a dirty word in America.
R9000 I can't really agree with that. I mean, it's certainly true for a lot of Americans - though it's hard to know how many exactly - but in my opinion Bernie seems to have taken the sting out of the word for a lot of people, especially young people.
Although a lot of those people now seem to think of socialism as just social democracy.
Dnt Wry Fair enough. Though I don't think many young people were hard-line republican anyway. I didn't mean for this to become a politics thing though, I just hope things improve somehow when it comes to capitalist greed.
R9000 Agreed.
Formal vs substantive is key. You explained that perfectly, clearer than I’ve ever heard it.
Related digression: Das Kapital should be required reading. Karl Marx was a philosopher before he was an economist.
Anyway, nice job here.
Could you make a video on Derek Parfit's reasons and persons? I already know the stuff he says about identity, I'm more interested in his arguments against self-interest, hedonism, etc. Thanks.
"The Rich" could best help anyone else by just paying their share, like everyone else. Remember, the Hamptons is not a defendable position.
I think a better question to ask is whether there should be rich and poor people. If poverty is injustice then so is wealth, and economies the corruption at their heart.
The thing is you don't necessarilly need to impoverish anyone to be rich yourself. If everyone gave you a dollar for a song you wrote you just became a billionaire without anyone having lost any significant value. In fact you gave them equivalent value in return. Now the question is what about this is bad? Didn't they all choose to exchange their currency for your song because they felt it is more valuable to them than the dollar they would have otherwise kept? And why should I not have the right to take that money they gave willingly?
You don't have to impoverish one person, no, but as you say the burden can be spread out. Since the amount of wealth in the economy is assumed to be fixed, one cannot acquire wealth without depriving others of it, even if that burden is spread, it's still a burden on the others. Especially in a capitalist economy, wealth is gained by depriving employees part of the value of their time and effort. Whatever form it ends up in, that's how it starts.
Whether or not employees choose to donate part of their labor's value to their employer or not, and we can argue how much of a choice there truly is in an economy where choosing not to means you don't eat, the employer still profits at the expense of others. I'll not debate your right to accept freely given money, but I would argue that a better system would meet everyone's needs equally such that the value of your song wasn't reduced to being monetary in nature--that it didn't burden anyone else to enjoy it, however small the burden.
"If poverty is injustice then so is wealth."
That's not true in general. Wealth is only injustice when it is in the hands of people who don't deserve wealth, just as poverty is only injustice in the hands of people who don't deserve poverty. One can make a strong argument that no one deserves poverty, that it would be a cruel punishment for even the worst of people, but that would only mean that all poverty is injustice without implying anything about wealth.
If we could have a world with no poverty, then there would be no poor for the rich to help and therefore no shame in being rich. As long as everyone gets substantive access to their rights, it's not obvious there is any injustice in some people having access to more luxuries than other people.
Ansatz66
The thing is no matter how you slice it resources are finite and limited. Thus if someone gains more someone else will always have less. Therefor if enough wealth is accumulated by some people it will inevitably result in the impoverishment of others.
I don't think we were watching the same video. That poverty is injustice is obvious, and in order for wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few means others must be poorer than they would otherwise be. Thus to be rich is also an injustice (to others)
The only reasonable solution I see is to do the best we can for everyone equally. I'm not asking rich people to be poor so the poor will be wealthy, I'm asking that everyone have the same standard of living and access to resources (and thus rights, to bring this back to the original subject of the video.)
The difference between formal and substantive rights is very similar to the difference between positive and negative freedoms. I've watched most of your videos and I don't think you've ever addressed the two types of freedoms, so I'd love to see you make a video about it! Given our current political state with the Supreme Court rolling back protected rights, I think it would be an especially relevant video to make and illustrating the distinction between the two could help a lot of people understand freedom better as a concept.
genuinely cannot get over how young abi is in this and how smart she is
Capitalism has no room for socio-economic equality...
False
@@bobsonbobbybobson6888 prove it
@@chocolatesugar4434 If I'm more gifted or more hard working than you are I shouldn't be held down by an invisible hand to satisfy your needs. If everyone had the same equality of outcome there would be a stagnation that lasts as long as the system is in place, because of no reward system. Why should I work hard and sacrifice my time and energy if I'll be held equal to someone who's too lazy to even feed themselves?
Why is socio-economic equality even attractive? Doesn’t sound good to me.
As a communist I'd obviously say yes.
if you were a communist you'd support emancipation of the proletariat (ie the "poor helping themselves"). communism isn't about wealth redistribution, but about commodity production.
Super piece. Thank you.
I'd suggest taking a look on Paulo Freire's material, he extensively talks about how this kind of philosophy in fact supports the maintenance of the Status Quo. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a quite good start.
I like how you started to touch on the global aspect of wealth in this video. While inequality within First World countries such as the US might seem extreme, we need to keep in mind that almost everyone living in "developed" (read: exploiter) nations fall into the top 15% of income earners globally-worldwide income inequality is even worse. The average income for a human being today is around $12,000 per person, while the median is less than a shocking $1500 (see globalrich list.com). On the whole, the entirety of the First World benefits from the exploitation of the vast majority of humanity that lives in the Third, siphoning away wealth through imperialist economic arrangements, puppet states and wars. As people living in the First World, we have the collective obligation to help secure the substantive rights of all people, especially those who are harmed by imperialism overseas every single day.
considering most of them got rich through inheritance (so they didn't actually 'earn' their wealth in the first place) or through the brutal and systemic exploitation of the lower classes, I say 'no' - their ill-gotten wealth should be taken and given to the people who really deserve it: the working class
SpoopySquid Not sure what country your from but 80% of American millionaires are 1st generation rich.
@@flameking2178 citation needed
from Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy,"
@@flameking2178 citation provided
Sorry I don't mean to pick on your comment specifically but I don't like to see major claims like this that lack support. I like arguing things but only if those arguments are supported by evidence I can read for myself. Anyway, I don't want to have an argument right now (I sometimes do like arguing politics but I just got home from 4 days arguing with my grandparents; don't worry I don't think either of us take it personally or anything) just to clarify that I don't necessarily agree, disagree, think your argument invalidates the video or comment, or anything, I just very much prefer sources in my internet arguments.
That's cool
I love emtymology: Labour, Momentum, gravitational relativity, anxiety and the 1987 film 'Predator' (I just came up with this today) - "Depression” from “Press”; “Depression” also referred to as “Inertia”; “Inertia” being the “Rest Mass” of a body in Einstein’s theory of relativity, which increases if moving nearer to the speed of light or under the influence of the gravity of a massive object - the effect of which is to contract the fabric of space and slow the rate of time for that body; the opposite of “Inert” is “Nert” - meaning “Power” or “Strength”; “Labour” is an act of “Nert” from a state that was formally “Inert”… or more correctly “Pregnant” or “Expecting” - as in “There was a pregnant pause from her lips before she spoke”; “Labour” during which a female pushes a baby (with great effort causing a lot a pain - typically making her very vocal) from her Womb, through her Vagina, and out through her Vulva (or Labia) - giving Birth; also “Pregnant” in Spanish is “Embarazada” which is the route of the word “Embarrassed”; “Inertia” is also the state of a body at rest or in uniform motion; An object with mass undergoing uniform motion has “Momentum”; “Momentum” - shortened from “Move-Mentum”; “Mentum” is Latin for the fused mandible bones of the human chin; “Mentum” is also the name for fused “Labium” of insect mouths; “Labia” meaning “Lips” and the inner and outer folds of the Vulva either side of the Vagina ( “Vagina” from the Latin word for “Scabbard” or “Sheath” for a sword - sword being used to cut open or cleave… cleavage, like the cleavage in the middle of the human buttocks or between a woman’s breasts); “Dutch” - slang for a joint of Marajuana (a green intoxicating substance derived from cannabis) which can be purchased legally from the Dutch city of Amsterdam, from which someone can get high, which can releave someone from a depressive state of mind, but can cause someone to be “stoned” or “monged” if they consume to much; “stoned” - hit by a stone as punishment…. “Stoned to Death”; ‘Dutch’ - about to crush (or “depress”) the Predator’s head with a stone - has a pregnant pause… “What the hell are you?” says Dutch from his lips to the ‘Predator’ as he sees what looks to be a mortality wounded foe coughing up green blood after Dutch rendered him immobile (or ‘”Inert”) under the weight of a large heavy tree trunk, in the 1987 film “Predator”, before the ‘Predator’ (also known as ‘Yautja’ or ‘Hish-Qu-Ten’) repeats Dutch’s words - “What the hell are you?” and then sets off a self-destruction device - laughing manically (“Manic” being the opposite state to “Depression”) - causing Dutch to flee for his life once he realises a bomb is about to go off… which it does - leaving a mushroom cloud after a giant ball of energy rises from the ‘Predator’ and explodes to release blinding light (due to matter being converted into pure energy - as stated in Einstein’s mass-energy equivelance equation E = mc^2) ….Before the conflict that ended in the ‘Predators’ death, he examined Dutch by lifting him up off the ground with his hand gripped around his jaw (or “Mentum”), which is clearly different to the ‘Predators’ split “Mandibles” (or “Labium”). Afterwards - rescued from the scene of destruction - Dutch sits in the helicopter inert with exhaustion… Covered in ash, with a blank expression as though actually “stoned” or “Monged” - so Dutch, there unable to process what had happened… from which he will later no doubt have “Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome” leading to feelings of depression and anxiety; “Anxiety” produced from contextualization of memories from the Hippocampus due to fear responses generated by the Amygdala, which get connected in the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis (BNST).
The Predator sees in infra-red... ...visible light can be red-shifted into infra red light by gravity. The Predator wears a fishnet... ...maybe the Predator also lays frog spawn? The Jungle is society... "When I was little, we found a man. He looked like - like, butchered. The old woman in the village crossed themselves... and whispered crazy things, strange things. "El Diablo cazador de hombres." Only in the hottest years this happens. And this year, it grows hot. We begin finding our men. We found them sometimes without their skins... and sometimes much, much worse. "El cazador trofeo de los hombres" means the demon who makes trophies of men."
Brilliant, I love your channel!
Full Communism?
Full Communism.
XD
62 67 Real Unicorns?
Real Unicorns.
There're too many interconnected factors and valid points in play here that make any single sweeping claim problematic one way or the other.
lol @ the band of anarchists you seem to have accumulated in your comments I liked the linking to bourgeois philosophy in this video. I think it would be good to see you highlight more contemporaneous and more accessible sources in your videos I feel like this video may lend some debt of gratitude to JoesephKay76 on twitter and would be nice to have these resources and those like him highlighted more in future. Maybe a list of favourite tweeters or youtubers in a future comment video?
I spent 15 minutes looking for a ringing phone while listening to this before realizing it was just the background music
Yes everyone should have access to the basics of life period. There's no reason for people to be living in squalor while others own countries and have billions of dollars
Everyone should watch this!
But not everyone would listen
deep
+Kira Stephens That usually happens when the message is garbage.
What a gem of a video
The converse of this is that "punishable with a fine" means "legal for rich people"
On paper, you don't have the right to do illegal things. But if a heavy fine feels like nothing, you might as well have that right.
I think there is an assumption in the "should rich give to the poor" that the infrastructure favors the rich so much that without this infrastructure to take advantage of the poor the "rich" would not be rich, and that all "poor" are at the receiving end of this system. This generalization is dangerous because it excludes the rich who have amassed wealth through ethical means (yes, they exist), AND the poor who are deservingly so (those idiots who refuse to work and still live at their parents' house at 30+). From these points, I agree the arguments are quite bourgeois: to enforce redistribution of wealth in such generalized manner is a direct contradiction to the right to pursuit of happiness... namely, the right to be happy through honest wealth.
Rather than trying to redistribute wealth in general, we should seek to reform the "infrastructure" that cause the supposed injustice in the first place, and/or increase enforcement of existing legal systems where their breaches are the source of these injustices.
Meanwhile though, the undeserving poor (which to my mind is most if not all) die. I'd rather have 100 scroungers sitting around doing nothing than one person die because they don't have enough.
Philosophy Tube I'd rather have that, too. But I would like to note that the number of "scroungers" will dramatically increase if the system incentivizes it, and more scroungers doesn't necessitate more wealth to go around since general productivity would also fall. As you probably know, people aren't these static beings who have unwavering moral compasses.
Philosophy Tube Just to add to the conversation, wouldn't it be a better social investment to strive for post-scarcity by increasing global productivity to naturally enable (but not forcefully ensuring) a minimum standard of living? Perhaps through technological advances and access to new resources like asteroid mining and high-yield crops?
We have that already. There's already enough resources for everyone - for instance there are more empty houses in London than homeless people - but those with the resources won't give them up to help others.
And again, meanwhile, the undeserving poor die.
Philosophy Tube Okay; I think before we continue, we should define a few concepts first, at least in a vague sense. How do we define "enough"? And how do we define "undeserving"?
I'll start first: to me, the "undeserving poor" are people who are poor because despite their willingness to work enough to receive the compensation they desire, they are unable to do so because of structural or cyclical unemployment (frictional doesn't count since by definition they transition eventually) or because they never learned the necessary skills to make a living due to unfortunate circumstances. Those who do not fit this definition, in my perspective, are people who refused to learn profitable skills despite being provided the opportunities and/or expect more compensation than they *should* receive (this amount being determined by market forces).
As for "enough," I believe there is no real way to define this in terms of human necessities. The "minimum standard of living" I previously mentioned did not mean to imply "enough resources to support a person," because each individual has different needs and generalizing such an amount would be impossible. I also want to clarify that when I said "naturally enable," I excluded the deserving poor: this post-scarcity society would have the ability to produce items on *fiscal* demand (where cost is determined by the production process), which means persons who cannot afford the resource do not deserve them (assuming people automatically prioritize necessities over luxury).
With these definitions, the root of the problem you mention is attributable to lack of infrastructure that lower structural unemployment and high living costs, not the method of wealth distribution. While simple charity is much more likely to decrease productivity and hurt the whole society, promoting employment will not only directly increase social productivity, but also *enable* people to match their work amount to compensations they need - the only time we can honestly say they have "enough". To achieve this, society should strive for better career infrastructure (and just more jobs in general), realistic but comprehensive quality of public education, and equal opportunities for the truly unfortunate children. It's much easier for a country to progress in these goals if their national productivity increases (and therefore, their taxed-produced budget).
*Tl;dr:* "You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." And our priority should be to find that "teacher".
the rich and poor shouldnt exist. i want a classless society
2:45 Olly takes on ace discourse
I can't wait to have money to donate to what is literally one of my favorite, and one of the best channels on philosophy or youtube. I'm a little under the influence, forgive my grammar.
In other words: We need socialism to ensure "substantive access to rights".
As a Leninist i agree with helping everyone who needs it. If the worker does not require assistance they do not receive any.
Define needs though. Does it have to be life threatening? Can it be trivial? Where is the cutoff?
For example, what if a worker says they need a loaf of bread. They get their bread right? What if they say they need two? They get two right? Two loaves of bread isn't much after all. What if they say they need ten? Is ten too much? What if they need a thousand, because they want to build their house out of bread?
Who decides what is necessary, and what is simply desired? Who decides what is folly and what is not? What if having a house made of bread would improve the quality of life of the person asking for it? Is it immoral to deny them that happiness? These are completely ridiculous questions of course, but there is truth in them. Who sits down and writes down, for the record, what is reasonable to ask for? Someone has to, so who is it?
And what if, after deciding on this level of reasonable need, you end the year with an excess of fuel for example? Do you distribute evenly, because everyone could use more fuel, or do you focus on people who recklessly used their fuel doing burnouts in their car? How do you distribute in a case like that?
***** The need to have a good life. To not suffer and starve nor go without shelter. The definition of need. Trivial things are wants.
Dillon Howells define "good life"? What if someone is materialistic, and doesn't enjoy life without luxury? The problem with most brands of socialism is it assumes most people have equal, if different needs (or just cops out entirely and assumes all people are identical in needs) but that isn't true. Some people are quite self sufficient, and don't need a lot to get by, and some people need vast amounts of resources because they squander it. You can't operate a system that tries to achieve equality of outcome (unless you literally just knock everyone down to the lowest level) because some people are just holes into which you could throw resources and food and yet they would still need more.
***** Those kinds of people would be exiled as they would steal resources from other who need them. That is unacceptable.
Dillon Howells Define the limit between acceptable and unacceptable. And now we are back to my original point.
At some level, someone needs to be in charge and make a decision on behalf of the nation. Suddenly you have given someone power over their fellow man. You have given someone the right to dictate how others must live. You have taken away the equality, and your whole systems is now self defeating.
You don't have equality of outcome now, because the outcome for one person is that they have more power than others. Do you put it to a vote, which can have drastic consequences for people who legitimately do need more to survive, or do you keep one person in charge of that because they have practice? Suddenly you have someone who can change things for their own gain, or for the benefit of those close to them at the expense of the rest of the people. You have created a system whereby someone has control over other people. You're not really giving the working class the power any more are you? You're giving the political class the power. Welcome back to Capitalism.
Freedom is not just permission. It's also Ability.
I know a person who has this sincerest willingness to help the poor even if she does not consider herself to be rich. The sad thing is that these poor people she has been helping through the years do not care about truly helping themselves in order to get away from poverty. As much as it is generally useful reminding the rich of their social responsibility, I hope there is more effort on trying to educate the poor tooregarding how to live their lives according to their means so that the people who are willing to help get more motivation on what they believe has to be done for a better world.
No one ever has the right to the product of someone else's labor.
Admiral Percy The earth belongs to no one
No, the world must seek to have less poor people, not to be more equal.
Eduardo Ballezza Why?
Because we shouldn't care if there are rich people, but we should care that there were not poor
Fair enough
Eduardo Ballezza: I don't understand what you're trying to say. Equality is a symmetrical relation. If you make it so there are less poor people, you are making people more equal, because then people's standard of living is becoming more similar.
The thing is that we shouldn't care for rich people or how rich they are, that's not important, the really important issue is to have less poor people regardless if there are billionaires.
This made me think back to Taurek's very individualist view of survival. If we applied his method to this, wouldn't it be that any individual rich person only needs to "save" as many poor people as are valuable to that rich individual? I know that runs right into the argument that looking at this in an individualistic way is too bourgeois. But since we're talking about life and death, shouldn't we utilize theories that deal in that sort of thing?
What would happen if we applied Timmerman's individualist lottery? How would that even work? I suppose at the very least it turn inequality into a true "natural disaster" kind of situation.
thank you I need more of this
The rich should help the poor. Wether or not that's a Bourgeois question doesn't matter to the correctness of the statement
Nicholas Young - What do you mean? Why? You can't just say something is correct just because it is to you. What do you mean by this?
But it won't accelerate the dialectic.
Nobody has obligation towards anybody.
As a Marxist, my answer is a huge "No!". The workers and the poor should liberate themselves and expropriate the expropriators. They should dismantle the system, which has put them in poverty in the first place.
Revolution yes and then the revolution comes full circle as those that were oppressed become the oppressors
Nicolas Young Not really. Also, that's a pretty weak and faulty excuse for this oppressive system of capitalism, tbh.
I'm not excusing it I'm just saying that Humans by nature are easily corruptible by power and those who are willing to lead a revolution are even more so. Why do you think that both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution ended the way they did?
Nicolas Young The french Revolution was a borgeois one, which was in its way progressiv. The Russian Revolution degenerated mainly because of adverse material conditions, like poverty, backwardness, isolation and civil war. You can't have socialism while you have scarcity. I may translat a old text from me into English but for now I wanna sleep. I can also recommend Trotskys "The Revolution Betrayed".
I'm a capitalist and I say no. Shoot the thugs who invade your private property and steal your belongings in name of equality.
what a video, comrade!
Hella late to this party (congrats to queen Abby, btw!), but imo, the rich not only have a moral obligation to help the poor, but a utilitarian REQUIREMENT to help the poor.
Take Sainsbury's, for example. The rely on farmers, delivery drivers, retail and shop floor workers, and other links in the chain between produce and shelved product sales. Yet the CEO is paid an extortionate amount compared to workers on the bottom. If those workers can't afford things like food, bills, shelter, entertainment (mental health is arguably more important than physical health), and healthcare, what happens if they get sick/can't eat etc.? Imagine if we didn't have the NHS, the second the workers get sick, they cease to be of use to Sainsbury's. Now imagine... oh, I dunno, a global pandemic occurs (frivolous as that may seem LEL), and MANY workers get sick, seriously so... The business ceases to function. The business is like a body - too many segments not working and the entire thing ceases to function. Now, if Sainsbury's contributes to the lives of the poor (whether through much higher wages or by increasing its taxes to contribute to state-funded healthcare etc.), then it would be the same as the 'body' creating its own 'self-repair' system. Essentially, what I'm saying is - businesses, look after your poor people! You'd be fecked without them! Also, it's the decent thing to do, have a heart, and stop being so neoliberal.
The rich are only rich on the backs of the poor. The question isn't whether the rich should help the poor, it's whether the rich should exist at all.
Should the rich BE rich? No.
MissXaverie Yes they do, because they worked hard.
Naftali Tale That's right. Every single one worked for that money. There is no such thing as an inheritance, or being born into a wealthy family.
RABID RABIDS ikr if I worked for my money I wouldn’t want to share it with lazy people.
The conversation of what constitutes a human right and how it relates to economic disparities is an interesting one to me. My perspective is as follows: Using the example of an economic transaction (abortion, food, medicine etc) is that if you have a right to a transaction, then nobody can justify taking it from you, but you are not entitled to the product of that agreement. I will put it this way: access (undisrupted) to goods is a right, but the goods themselves are not rights.
Thankyou, your exposition/definition of the difference between formal and substantive rights is very clear. You did not get into how rights are established in the first place, but there was probably not time. I was pleased that you did manage to mention that the word "charity" should be replaced with the word "justice" (but, without giving a reference). Unfortunately communism has failed in every state where it has been tried. Economic elites were simply replaced with brutal political elites who distributed resources their own way and created new underclasses. The political elites then became the new economic elites. For example , in communist Eastern Europe, medicines (a basic need) were often of poor quality, not particularly cheap (due to supply issues brought about by the "managed" economy) and were distributed first to those who had "connections". A workable system will fall somewhere in between the extremes of political "ideals". Incidentally, Jefferson's right to the "pursuit of happiness" entailed the right to accumulation of considerable wealth, (and perhaps the right to give it away).
Poverty is lower than it has ever been. Only in the last 30 years more than 400 million people left the poverty status. The average american citizen today has more things than a monarch had in the middle ages. All of this was caused by capitalism and free markets. So please, we don't need more governmet programs and taxes, we need more entrepreneurs, more jobs, more technology and more freedom.
felipe jannotti: In the past 30 years, most of that reduction in poverty was a result of improving economic conditions (relative to what they were previously) in China. If you're going to praise capitalism for the economic conditions in China - ostensibly a communistic nation - then you're just showing your argument to be a tautology. In which case, woop-de-doo, I can such make an "argument" in support of literally any position.
And again, much of the improvement in living standards came because of technological improvements enacted by governments (e.g. nuclear technology, space age spin-offs, the Internet, etc.) not from the private sector, and definitely not by "entrepreneurs". We can maintain these advancements because of resource theft from 3rd-world nations over the last couple of centuries. And that's ignoring the medical advancements (especially vaccines and clean foods) whose proliferation throughout society is almost entirely due to government enforcement and regulations. These things are all anathema to a "free, unhindered market", which is why governments had to do them.
Simply looking at our current society, noting that we generally seem pretty well off, and noting our economic system, is an absurdly simplistic way of looking at things.
Mind-Forged Manacles Mind-Forged Manacles China's economically capitalist, is less regulated than the US and most technological innovation where the govt is involved also involves a for-profit company which is being funded by the govt. Govt's give subsidies and grants, the companies do the innovation, and no matter if u think that is good or bad it is true for the majority of tech. Also u don't understand what a tautology is, which is very embarrassing because u used it so confidently. Lol
Keith Robben It's certainly not less regulated than the US.
Yeah government gives grants and subsidies. And does its own innovation. This happens in the United States to an extreme degree. Is that capitalism? Sounds like state capitalism to me. You're providing direct public subsidy for companies. I mean you could say that's capitalism as it actually exists, but it sure as shit is not free markets. It sure as shit has nothing to do with "freedom" and "entrepreneurship."
felipe jannotti It's true, Americans do have more material goods than monarchs would have had back then. But consider this: nearly everybody has an iPhone or smartphone, laptops, and vehicles, and yet it took until 2014 when the ACA came into effect to guarantee all Americans the access to affordable healthcare. Now that right is at severe risk of being revoked. A society that prioritizes gadgets and individual consumption over healthcare is just plain fucked up. You know something is wrong when that is the case.
I recommend reading "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang. One of the things he explains is how neoliberal economics, while creating some growth in developing countries in places like Africa and South America, is made at the expense of real true development in the long run. Essentially we are keeping them poor, when we used completely different methods to become rich. If not for this, perhaps global poverty would be much, much lower. I believe 2 billion suffer from it.
Also don't be fooled by the drop in poverty. A lot of that is extreme poverty. So you go from living on less than $1 a day to $2 or something. For them a huge leap, but nothing to write home about for us.
I am not sure that it follows that if you believe helping the poor is a matter of justice that the resources of the wealthy are not theirs in the first place. Imagine a wealthy doctor driving through a very rural area runs over someone in a car because the doctor was driving carelessly. He finds the bleeding, injured man who needs blood immediately to survive. The injured man is wearing a medical alert bracelet that indicates his blood type, which is identical to the doctor. Assuming the doctor has the equipment to give blood, and given that it would be unjust for the doctor to allow this man to die, I am still not certain one can clearly say that the doctor's blood is no longer his own. Imagine that the doctor is also a Jehova's Witness, and therefore has religious objections to blood transfusion. What then?
I am also unclear on how one determines when it's permissible to stop giving resources. If a wealthy family helps the poor, obviously any one wealthy family could exhaust it's wealth entirely aiding the poor, because no one wealthy family is rich enough to cure poverty. So, given that they are willing to help in the first place, would we really argue that they should give until they themselves are poor? I mean, sure, if we compelled every wealthy person to help that might not be needed, but since we're not what advice do we give to the people who want to help? Should our advice be "Thanks, but that's not good enough. Keep giving, because your wealth doesn't belong to you."?
Does the actual source of the wealth matter? If a man is wealthy because he invented a cure for a certain type of cancer is that wealth "more his" than the wealth of a man who owns apartment blocks in the inner city?
Hmmm... but is bodily autonomy a basic right that everyone should have? I think it is! Without a reasonable guarantee of bodily autonomy, you can't have a reasonable guarantee to other higher-level rights. So I think the doctor's right to bodily autonomy trumps the victim's right to immediate health care in that situation.
Perhaps Olly did not put enough emphasis on the fact that rights need to be REASONABLY guaranteed. Your situation is an incredibly rare one. In a less strange situation, he would have time to get to a hospital to assert his right to health care.
If we all had the same standard of living, that isn't excessive and is comfortable where all the basic human needs are met then surely there wouldn't be any rich or poor, excessive wealth/poverty. We'd literally all live like neighbours, none more exclusive than the other.
The problem with that is that you might arbitrarily set the standard of living to be equal....but two obvious problems arise.
First, what is that standard of living. This is an ethics video so we obviously we can't limit ourselves to equalizing the standard only among Americans, 88% of whom are upper middle class (~32%) to "wealthy" (~56% by international standards. according to the Pew Research Center. Using their data worldwide the upper end of the real middle class, on average, subsists on ~$7,300 per year.. By American standards that's living in poverty. So the problem isn't just one of equalizing what we have (which is not as easy as it sounds when you consider how corruption can divert and undermine the distribution of food, water and aid internationally).
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/ft_15-07-08_gmcglobal_vs_usa/
Second, although buy no means the last problem, assuming a perfectly even distribution of income, that would not be a long term equilibrium. Money flows to nations producing goods and services and the current balance of trade in the US is now and has been for a long time negative. We are in effect already shipping our wealth out of the country, we're just so wealthy that the effect of it is hard to discern.
On a more granular level people really do have a different tolerance for work and different levels of ambition. Someone with two jobs working 70 hours a week will earn more than someone working 25 hours a week and satisfied with that. Now with a lower standard of living it's hard to imagine anyone surviving on 25 hours of weekly work, but the point is you will get some people who prioritize leisure more than others anmd even under the most socialist of socialist systems people found ways to earn more than the system was supposed to allow.black market work, under the table jobs, soliciting bribes, theft, negotiating for payments in goods and services and under-reporting the value of the consideration received, there are lots of strategies. Unless you change the economic system as a whole and human nature along with it, even an initially equal distribution of wealth, goods and services will adjust to people's preferences. In capitalism that is considered a positive...the guy who loves his days off is better off working less (happier) and the guy who chooses to work more for more material comforts does so because ihe prefers it, The Coase Theorem (or its transaction cost laden analogue) does its work and redistributes goods and services (and wealth).
The upside is that, I suspect, there would be less material inequality after such a change than there is now...at least for a while. But unless you change the peoples' preferences you will have to keep re-equalizing incomes periodically...and you will in effect either be telling the guy who works hard to earn more, to stop working hard or forcing the guy who loves leisure to work harder (or both). Att least initially, they might feel worse off because what this new system requires will conflict with their preferences. (Though in the long term perhaps their preferences will adjust.)
The Soviets tried actively to retrain people's preferences and that was not a shining success even discounting the corruption and oppression. As a species, on average, we do like to procrastinate and slack off if we can get away with it without it costing us anything.
Kurt Great comment. Thank you for putting so much effort into that. That is a lot to think about.
@@kyungmix oh yes and I would like to see our advances in technology.
You should do a video about season 3 of the tv show "Hannibal"' and its themes related to morality and what follows from its non existence :)
I'd like to add that most resources nowadays are in the form of government-regulated fiat currency that the government prints for free and regulates entirely for the benefits to society as a whole, so in a very real sense the money owned by most rich people isn't full owned by them.
Imagine thinking that property is theft, but that taxation isn't also.